3 ms·

The states in question have zero obligation to help make the feds jobs easier. The people complaining about this situation feel entitled to other states using t

by lovich 9mo ago

The states in question have zero obligation to help make the feds jobs easier. The people complaining about this situation feel entitled to other states using their resources to help the federal government enact policies that they want enforced nationwide. This is why everyone rolls their eyes when conservatives crow about states rights. They don’t actually want state rights, they want their views enforced on the other states. I’m actually for less of states independence from the feds on a bunch of areas, and immigration is probably one of them, but as long as this is a tool in the toolbox that conservatives are eager to use, I’m going to call them out for bitching about someone else doing the same thing.

remarkEon 9mo ago
Sure sure, the street raids shall continue for as long as it makes people feel better to point out some sort of implied hypocrisy by conservatives.
- lovich 9mo ago
  No, the street raids will continue while this admin continues their authoritarian streak. Whether or not the states help them be authoritarian is orthogonal to the chaos in the streets. If you just want blue states to bend the knee and capitulate, you should say so.
  - remarkEon 9mo ago
    Look, I’m not the one who supports street raids, that’s you. I’m not understanding your point anymore. Do you not want immigration law enforced at all?
    - lovich 9mo ago
      The states that are lenient to immigrants don’t like the federal policy and so are choosing to not help them. Not helping them is not hindering the feds, unless you feel entitled to the help. Actively getting in the way is something like when Texas started trying to implement their own national border policy. Tell me you at least recognize the difference between actively doing something against some group, and merely not helping them? > Look, I’m not the one who supports street raids, that’s you. lol, you sound like a wife beater “look you just gotta do what I say or I _have_ to hurt you. There’s no other alternatives babe”
      - remarkEon 9mo ago
        An illegal immigrant commits a crime, say vehicular homicide. ICE lodges a detainer against this person, and the local PD refuses and instead releases the offender. As a result, ICE runs a tactical team out to go pick him up. This is the outcome that you appear to believe is optimal, and you are intentionally using emotionally loaded words like "lenient" to attempt to guilt me into retreating from my position that this is, in fact, not an optimal outcome. In many cases like this additional crimes are committed before the offender is apprehended, crimes which are of course 100% preventable, without you and your "leniency". >Tell me you at least recognize the difference between actively doing something against some group, and merely not helping them? Technically speaking, you are right. These states are actively working against their own citizens, not the Federal government.
        lovich 9mo ago
        Ok, well you’re pulling out the ICE detainer shit so I know you’re deep in the sauce. > Technically speaking, you are right. These states are actively working against their own citizens, not the Federal government. If that’s your view then we’re never seeing eye to eye. Good luck with the new world order you’re getting.
        remarkEon 9mo ago
        Your initial claim was that some States are merely "not assisting" the Federal government with their immigration duties, which is actually not a choice they get to make since the controlling caselaw (again, Arizona v. United States) prevents them from doing this even if they wanted to. Local cops cannot investigate immigration status, full stop. I point it out that some states actually go further, and passed laws that bar their police from doing the following. Feds: hey you arrested individual_x, he's in the country illegally and oh by the way has a few other outstanding warrants, can you please hold him at the jail house, we're going to pick him up for immigration proceedings. Cops: sure thing, let us know when you get here And now we get. Feds: hey hold that guy you arrested, he's got a standing deportation order from years ago, hold him until we get there. Cops: No, in fact, we're going to let him go. You continued to imply that banning the former is somehow preferable, even though the latter results in ... street raids. I'm not really seeing how I'm the bad guy here, and honestly I think your real policy preference is simply that no immigration law is enforced at all. You should have the courage to say so, since that is quite clearly the policy preference for a large portion of the electorate, and possibly a majority of the Democratic Party.

by lovich 9mo ago

remarkEon 9mo ago

Sure sure, the street raids shall continue for as long as it makes people feel better to point out some sort of implied hypocrisy by conservatives.

lovich 9mo ago
No, the street raids will continue while this admin continues their authoritarian streak. Whether or not the states help them be authoritarian is orthogonal to the chaos in the streets. If you just want blue states to bend the knee and capitulate, you should say so.
- remarkEon 9mo ago
  Look, I’m not the one who supports street raids, that’s you. I’m not understanding your point anymore. Do you not want immigration law enforced at all?
  - lovich 9mo ago
    The states that are lenient to immigrants don’t like the federal policy and so are choosing to not help them. Not helping them is not hindering the feds, unless you feel entitled to the help. Actively getting in the way is something like when Texas started trying to implement their own national border policy. Tell me you at least recognize the difference between actively doing something against some group, and merely not helping them? > Look, I’m not the one who supports street raids, that’s you. lol, you sound like a wife beater “look you just gotta do what I say or I _have_ to hurt you. There’s no other alternatives babe”
    - remarkEon 9mo ago
      An illegal immigrant commits a crime, say vehicular homicide. ICE lodges a detainer against this person, and the local PD refuses and instead releases the offender. As a result, ICE runs a tactical team out to go pick him up. This is the outcome that you appear to believe is optimal, and you are intentionally using emotionally loaded words like "lenient" to attempt to guilt me into retreating from my position that this is, in fact, not an optimal outcome. In many cases like this additional crimes are committed before the offender is apprehended, crimes which are of course 100% preventable, without you and your "leniency". >Tell me you at least recognize the difference between actively doing something against some group, and merely not helping them? Technically speaking, you are right. These states are actively working against their own citizens, not the Federal government.
      - lovich 9mo ago
        Ok, well you’re pulling out the ICE detainer shit so I know you’re deep in the sauce. > Technically speaking, you are right. These states are actively working against their own citizens, not the Federal government. If that’s your view then we’re never seeing eye to eye. Good luck with the new world order you’re getting.
        remarkEon 9mo ago
        Your initial claim was that some States are merely "not assisting" the Federal government with their immigration duties, which is actually not a choice they get to make since the controlling caselaw (again, Arizona v. United States) prevents them from doing this even if they wanted to. Local cops cannot investigate immigration status, full stop. I point it out that some states actually go further, and passed laws that bar their police from doing the following. Feds: hey you arrested individual_x, he's in the country illegally and oh by the way has a few other outstanding warrants, can you please hold him at the jail house, we're going to pick him up for immigration proceedings. Cops: sure thing, let us know when you get here And now we get. Feds: hey hold that guy you arrested, he's got a standing deportation order from years ago, hold him until we get there. Cops: No, in fact, we're going to let him go. You continued to imply that banning the former is somehow preferable, even though the latter results in ... street raids. I'm not really seeing how I'm the bad guy here, and honestly I think your real policy preference is simply that no immigration law is enforced at all. You should have the courage to say so, since that is quite clearly the policy preference for a large portion of the electorate, and possibly a majority of the Democratic Party.